By Mike Galsworthy1 and Martin McKee2

The 2016 vote to leave the European Union (EU) shocked British scientists. The European Union enjoys strong support from researchers across United Kingdom academia and indus- try, with 17% of all U.K. university science contracts now funded by the European
Union, accounting for 73% of the growth
in U.K. university science budgets in recent
years (1). These EU funds support high-value
multinational collaborations. Free movement of researchers within the European
Union ensures flow of talent to where it is
most needed and helps early career researchers acquire scarce skills. U.K. scientists have
enjoyed access to EU research infrastructure
and strong influence on shared regulatory
systems. Facing potential exclusion from a
global science powerhouse that it has done
so much to shape, how should the United
Kingdom disentangle itself from this 40-year
old collaboration? We propose an eight-point
plan to limit the immediate damage and to
put U.K. science on the front foot in the wake
of the Brexit vote.

Although national research investmentshave been falling in the United Kingdom, Eu-ropean Union investment has nearly tripledover the past decade (2– 4), accompanied bya strong emphasis on excellence. About 16%of the U.K.’s academic workforce is fromelsewhere in the European Union ( 5). TheUnited Kingdom can attract these research-ers more easily by being part of a system thatfacilitates free movement of people. An inter-national legal framework to harmonize lawsand standards on areas dealing with cross-border collaboration avoids the complexityof 28 different sets of laws. In science, thisapplies to working conditions, chemicals,data protection, clinical trials, animal use,and technical standards. The United King-dom has often been a leading voice in shap-ing these regulations. From the EuropeanMedicines Agency (EMA) based in Londonto clinical trials regulation, the United King-dom has guided the European Union’s lifesciences framework—and through the Eu-ropean Union has become a global force inmedical and life sciences innovation. If theUnited Kingdom and European Union split,the United Kingdom will find itself withoutthat influence, and the European Union willlose a vital asset.

Although the U.K. science communitymade its support for the European Unionknown during the referendum debate ( 6, 7),the science narrative did not feature stronglyin the official Remain campaign. In the af-termath of the vote, the U.K. science min-ister and the EU Commissioner for sciencestressed that U.K. partners remained eligiblefor Horizon 2020 projects while in the Eu-ropean Union and that there would be nojustification for discrimination. In August2016, the U.K. government announced thatit would “underwrite” funding for U.K. par-ticipation in EU science grants, includingthose extending beyond any U.K. departurefrom the European Union. Yet this simplyrestated the U.K.’s obligation to honor con-tracts signed while in the European Union.What was missing was any commitmentthat, in the long run, any fall in funding dueto reduced access to the European Unionprogram would be replaced by money fromwithin the United Kingdom ( 8).

A PLAN FOR U.K. SCIENCE

Research shows that strong domestic capacity for research and innovation is a major
contributor to economic growth ( 9). Given
the threat posed by Brexit to the U.K. economy, revealed by the independent Office for
Budget Responsibility ( 10), coupled with the
particular threats that Brexit poses to mobility and collaborative networks, science now
requires special attention from the U.K. government. As it develops a new post-Brexit industrial strategy, life sciences must be at the
heart of this new vision ( 11).

1. Funding. The U.K. science budget must
be put on an upward trajectory, ideally from
1.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
2016 toward 3% ( 12). Failure to commit to
this goal risks damaging U.K. science because the attraction and retention of talent
is hugely influenced by how a country’s future intentions are perceived. Without this
commitment, the United Kingdom will be
disadvantaged in negotiations with the European Union as it will be seen to lack the
safety nets and capacity to compensate for
loss of EU grants. The U.K. Chancellor’s autumn statement promised an additional £2
billion (U.S. $2.53 billion) by 2021 ( 13). If this
leverages private investment as expected,
that could push the U.K. to spend up to 2%
of GDP in 5 years’ time. This is helpful but
less than competitive. It also must be clarified whether these funds are in addition to
(or subsume) any attempt to buy back into
the EU science program, which would be of
similar cost per annum.

2. Immigration. There is a need to shore up
the mechanisms to import talent easily and
to reinforce the attractiveness of the United
Kingdom as a place to pursue a longer-term
career in science. The United Kingdom must
maintain the benefits of freedom of move-